Doubling Up On Road

[DonnyDarko]

Are you allowed to ride side-by-side on roads?

Seen a lot of group cycling going on and they seem to ride in pairs. Which is annoying when you're in a car and are trying to overtake half a dozen pairs around blind bends etc (or sit behind them all the whole journey).

It's like overtaking a coach in length, but one with the stability of string, as every now and then one will dodge a pot whole and jut out without looking behind first etc.

Wondering what the correct way to go about this would be as I'll be cycling to work soon and a few people have the same route and I wouldn't mind a natter on the way to work but not if it's against the law (or unsafe).

Thanks for your help.

 

[gaz]

Of course, they aren't taking up any more space than any other vehicle on the road.

 

[ianrauk]

The highway code states that when overtaking a cyclists a car should give the same amount of space as if overtaking another car. So cycling 2 abreast should be no problem. Of course motons don't see it that way.

 

[HLaB]

Its perfectly legal and as well as being sociable in some places it can be of benefit to appear as a larger block and make the overtaker think and is more safe. It also allows for more efficient travel so drivers come across faster groups which holds them up less.

 

[montyboy]

Accident waiting to happen I'd say.

 

[jig-sore]

high way code clearly states that you should not ride more than two abreast, but most car drivers wrongly believe that it states you should not ride two abreast.

yes, its perfectly legal

 

[Red Light]

Are you allowed to ride side-by-side on roads?

Are you allowed to drive round side by side with an empty seat? Disgraceful!

Worrying though that you are driving round without knowing your Highway Code.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I'll take the ''I'll be driving to work soon'' quote at face value and assume that the OP is building up counter-arguments against his or his colleague's mithering.

 

[Bicycle]

Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.

It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.

The argument that 'a passing car should allow as much space as it does for a car' can lose something in real life.

If we are arguing that a car must allow a single cyclist the same room they allow a car, does that mean a whole lane?

That is the width I allow for a car when I'm passing it in my car.

That being so, do I then allow two whole lanes for two cyclists riding abreast?

If not, do I allow them the width I'd give a car plus the width of one bicycle?

This is a serious question, not some exercise in elementary trolling.

In the lanes around my picturesque market town, passing a single bicycle is fraught with difficulty. I know. I train regularly on those lanes; so do my two younger children, who still live at home.

Passing two cycles abreast is a practical impossibility unless they go in line astern.

I ride 2-abreast with my children along the lanes, but as soon as we hear a car we slip into line. It's a common courtesy.

On most roads, I would not even consider riding two-abreast.

"Because the HC says I can" just seems the weak justification of the kind of cyclist who refers to motorists as 'motons'.

But I'm lucky. In 40 years cycling and 30 years driving, I've never had a cross word with another motorist or cyclist. Maybe if I'd been unfortunate enough to elicit quite unjustified insults from other road users, I'd be more inclined to hang with my grimy fingertips onto the hallowed word of the HC. I don't know.

 

[montyboy]

Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.

It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.

The argument that 'a passing car should allow as much space as it does for a car' can lose something in real life.

If we are arguing that a car must allow a single cyclist the same room they allow a car, does that mean a whole lane?

That is the width I allow for a car when I'm passing it in my car.

That being so, do I then allow two whole lanes for two cyclists riding abreast?

If not, do I allow them the width I'd give a car plus the width of one bicycle?

This is a serious question, not some exercise in elementary trolling.

In the lanes around my picturesque market town, passing a single bicycle is fraught with difficulty. I know. I train regularly on those lanes; so do my two younger children, who still live at home.

Passing two cycles abreast is a practical impossibility unless they go in line astern.

I ride 2-abreast with my children along the lanes, but as soon as we hear a car we slip into line. It's a common courtesy.

On most roads, I would not even consider riding two-abreast.

"Because the HC says I can" just seems the weak justification of the kind of cyclist who refers to motorists as 'motons'.

But I'm lucky. In 40 years cycling and 30 years driving, I've never had a cross word with another motorist or cyclist. Maybe if I'd been unfortunate enough to elicit quite unjustified insults from other road users, I'd be more inclined to hang with my grimy fingertips onto the hallowed word of the HC. I don't know.

Well said that man!

 

[ianrauk]

Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.

It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.

The argument that 'a passing car should allow as much space as it does for a car' can lose something in real life.

If we are arguing that a car must allow a single cyclist the same room they allow a car, does that mean a whole lane?

That is the width I allow for a car when I'm passing it in my car.

That being so, do I then allow two whole lanes for two cyclists riding abreast?

If not, do I allow them the width I'd give a car plus the width of one bicycle?

This is a serious question, not some exercise in elementary trolling.

In the lanes around my picturesque market town, passing a single bicycle is fraught with difficulty. I know. I train regularly on those lanes; so do my two younger children, who still live at home.

Passing two cycles abreast is a practical impossibility unless they go in line astern.

I ride 2-abreast with my children along the lanes, but as soon as we hear a car we slip into line. It's a common courtesy.

On most roads, I would not even consider riding two-abreast.

"Because the HC says I can" just seems the weak justification of the kind of cyclist who refers to motorists as 'motons'.

But I'm lucky. In 40 years cycling and 30 years driving, I've never had a cross word with another motorist or cyclist. Maybe if I'd been unfortunate enough to elicit quite unjustified insults from other road users, I'd be more inclined to hang with my grimy fingertips onto the hallowed word of the HC. I don't know.

Nor would I. It's plain common sense and simple road craft. Where the road allows 2 abreast then it should not be a problem for anybody.
Sensible car drivers also understand this and the majority are very good, wait until there is a space to over take safely or wait until the cyclists single file. Moton's do neither.

 

[Red Light]

Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.

It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.

The argument that 'a passing car should allow as much space as it does for a car' can lose something in real life.

If we are arguing that a car must allow a single cyclist the same room they allow a car, does that mean a whole lane?

That is the width I allow for a car when I'm passing it in my car.

That being so, do I then allow two whole lanes for two cyclists riding abreast?

If not, do I allow them the width I'd give a car plus the width of one bicycle?

This is a serious question, not some exercise in elementary trolling.

In my experience cyclist riding two abreast take little more width than a single cyclist if the single cyclist is riding where they should be on the road. There is no need to for the nearside cyclist to ride as far out as they would on their own to control the traffic. So pass cyclists riding two abreast with the same clearance from the off-side cyclist as you would if they were on their own. Simples.

 

[Hip Priest]

If we are arguing that a car must allow a single cyclist the same room they allow a car, does that mean a whole lane?

That is the width I allow for a car when I'm passing it in my car.

You should give the same clearance when passing a cyclist as you would for a car. Not pretend a cyclist is a car. As bikes are narrower than cars, you wouldn't need to move as far to the right as you would for a car.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

You should give the same clearance when passing a cyclist as you would for a car. Not pretend a cyclist is a car. As bikes are narrower than cars, you wouldn't need to move as far to the right as you would for a car.

You are misquoting what the highway code says. Is that to try to give some apparent validity to your erroneous point? HC rule 163 says: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". That means, if you would give a car 9 feet in which to manoeuvre when you pass it, then you should give a cyclist 9 feet in which to manoeuvre when you you pass.

 

[Fab Foodie]

S'funny you know, motorists have little problem being patient and giving a very wide berth to horses ....